Does anyone have any pic of type 212

[Guest]

Hi all.

Just wondering if anyone has any pictures of a Type 212 or possible bulkhead/frame's/drawing's?

Also what's the advantages of the X-style rudder/hydroplane set up?

Thank's and best regards


adam

[typ 202]

Adam--

This is from the manufacturers

Adam--

This is from the manufacturers web site.

http://www.nordseewerke.de/d/info/modellbau.html

Click on the little drawing of the sub to expand it and there you are. For photos just google for images. There are an incredible number of photos of it.

As for the X-planes, I'm no expert but all that I've read states that it's for stability when sitting on the seabed.

Good luck and post photos of your build. RC or static? If it's RC do a google search of the name Cord Schroeder (sp?).

Mike

[anonymous]

X-stern has several advantages. Tighter

X-stern has several advantages. Tighter turns. You have in effect four rudders and four stern planes, with an electronic mixer giving you any combination of these two functions. You loose one stern plane, you can still maneuver with the other three. And last as you related, it does facilitate seabed 'bottoming' better. The U.S. Navy developed the system on Albacore in 1960, but even though very successful, it was a feature not adopted by American combatant submarines. A highly manuverable high speed sub to dogfight and evade enemy torpedoes? Perhaps wisely, the American Navy focused instead on avoiding enemy torpedoes by designing their subs (better stealth) to not be detected in the first place.

The first combatant submarine to adopt this system was the Swedish Navy's Sjoorman submarines in 1967. Since then Sweden has never looked back, and other Navies have adopted it too. Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Israel, Norway, Singapore (refurbished tropicalized Sjoormans), now Italy too. I hope I have not forgotten someone. Notice all these navies use submarines either built or designed in the northern countries of Europe. Sweden, Germany, Holland. Why? One word...'Baltic'. It is a shallow inland sea.

The American Navy has yet so far not adopted this system. Adm. Rickover's shadow looms long in history. His objection to X-sterns for the U.S. Navy was the lack of a manual back up. This was a valid issue perhaps in 1960, but not long since. Even that argument is weak, the V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza uses in effect the same like system mechanically. Beechcraft designs historically always tended to be conservative, but happily Beechcraft was also not afraid to concider other firmly proven concepts as solutions in meeting their design criteria. Two V-tail planes for less drag, with higher though still very acceptable structural loads that would result. So manual back up for the U.S. Navy back in 1960 was really a lame excuse then. The 'Kiss' principle however is always desirable in any era. That was what likely won the day perhaps...sadly. Today, there is no Rickover, and electronics are...well..there is little in our modern world that does not have solid state electronics, our automobile engines, fly by wire for aircraft....so these mission critical functions with electronics incorporated are now common place.

X-sterns are especially handy on smaller littoral submarines.

Steve Reichmuth



Edited By Dolphin on 1131162123

[Guest]

Thanks very much for the

Thanks very much for the link mike.

And thanks steve for the information regarding X-wing system.

I have already looked at cord schroder's photo's of his 212.

This will be r/c wet hull. Cannot decide if it should be piston tanks or sealed ballast tank with water pump.

Thanks again gent's best regards

adam

[gerwalk]

It is interesting to note

It is interesting to note that the U214s for the greek navy based on the 212 have not a X-stern. I would like to know the reason since they are designed to opperate in the Mediterranean sea as well as the Italian 212 which have X-sterns.